first off, damn! some good threads in sandbox. should keep up with sandbox in general more often. just doesn't register that normal topics exist here. haha
ok, so I know this is a hooker/escort question/story but seems it belongs here more than a coed thing.
anyways there is this new channel: ID. all about crazy stories about some crazy motherfuckers. let's just say part of me can't believe there is such crazy assholes out there. another way to explain it is it's full of macabre attention grabbing stories that just make you think WTF?
so on with the question, one story was about this hooker in colorado. search Paige Birgfeld or Lester Ralph Jones if intersted
a couple of links to for those curious
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-is-found?lite
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/48-hours...in-the-making/
.........eh, actually guess should explain some before the actual question thinking about it. on the TV story they kept calling the victim an escort over and over. said she worked in an adult business and it was well known she was a stripper before the story even takes place. if you read the articles they almost make it sound like she was running an agency which the TV story did not. some of her close friends admitted to knowing she was an escort but said all she did was give massages (most likely naked or topless her friends speculated). one friend who was interviewed repeatedly even said her husband had a friend who had seen the victim and claimed she wouldn't provide, in terms I'm familiar with, VIP service (no sex). that this buddy even offered extra money. at this point of information was thinking the lady was a moron and had no clue what her husband did himself.
so now to my question, if they were calling her an escort wouldn't that only fit if she was actually providing full service? otherwise wouldn't she just be some body rub/massage chick? or do different states classify escort differently? or maybe the TV story was trying to spin the victim in a different light? or were her friends, the popo, and the TV crew just idiots with terminology? or were her friends just trying to make her seem less sleezy in their opinions? or maybe something else not aware of or hadn't considered?
here's a link to a copy of the ad she had posted they kept showing on the TV story
http://www.acandyrose.com/paige_birgfeld_photo5a.jpg
anyways, if you're bored, curious on fellow eccie'ians thoughts.
- JustMeCLTXGG
- 08-14-2016, 11:39 PM
- Fancyinheels
- 08-15-2016, 10:39 AM
Well, if she didn't offer full service, labeling her an "escort" seems cursory. When did the news media ever get anything completely right? (This said from a woman with a journalism degree who abandoned the field as it became increasingly corrupt and sensationalized. What I do now is more honest.)
However, perhaps she and her "models" actually "escorted" gents to public and private venues as arm candy? Didn't see much evidence from the stories on private activities, just speculation. She was on NaughtyNightlife, and that site is known primarily for GFE and PSE, not much for FBSM.
The clinical term "provider" encompasses all types of sensual/sexual services with less targeted accuracy, but I think "carnal companion" covers everything and is much more flattering. Don't see that becoming part of the lusty lexicon, however.
However, perhaps she and her "models" actually "escorted" gents to public and private venues as arm candy? Didn't see much evidence from the stories on private activities, just speculation. She was on NaughtyNightlife, and that site is known primarily for GFE and PSE, not much for FBSM.
The clinical term "provider" encompasses all types of sensual/sexual services with less targeted accuracy, but I think "carnal companion" covers everything and is much more flattering. Don't see that becoming part of the lusty lexicon, however.
- JustMeCLTXGG
- 08-15-2016, 05:07 PM
haha. thanks for the insight as always Fancy.
didn't want to type a book on the TV story as in attempted to keep it brief. some more info from that TV story was that she rented a room (at a hotel it seemed but I don't remember the TV story actually stating hotel). she rented it under the guise of being a masseuse or something legit. of course the business entity/place claimed no knowledge of what she actually did but interviews with employees (think it was employees) claimed to notice lots of different men coming and going on Thursday nights believe it was, and the victim wearing skimpy outfits that didn't really fit what they were told was going on. also appeared she modified the room quite a bit with an actual table in there and rented it regularly. it might have mentioned her going out to dinners but couldn't swear to that. she was married and had 3 kids while she was doing this so not sure she'd have went out to publicly.
my inner voice kept telling me her friends/popo/media was morons or just lying. especially since they called her an escort the whole hour of the story and everything she did sounded very escort-y. another part of that reasoning being, why would she do something like FBSM when she could have just went back to dancing much more easily? she even had experience with stripping and it was where she met her current (2nd or 3rd, forget now) husband. maybe stripping wouldn't have been as private? yet her friends claimed she told them everything so privacy wouldn't make much sense if that was a true statement.
one of the lawyers interviewed, believe read this in an article and wasn't part of the TV story (had to look this story up afterward), claimed the city attorneys were trying to make the victim seem more victim and innocent and less ho so as to have a better chance at convicting the suspect. my thinking, it doesn't matter what she did the dude still should be convicted but wonder if this angle held any credibility. maybe the thinking process is the general public might think she deserved what she got if they knew for a fact she was an actual hooker.
bottom line is it just bugged the shit out of me everytime they called her an escort then turned around and said she didn't have sex with the guys she met. it was like a mix of you fucking dumbasses can't be that dumb or she had to be the shittiest escort in her state. haha and how the hell could she claim to be filet mignon in her ad. sounded more like imitation soy bean burger.
didn't want to type a book on the TV story as in attempted to keep it brief. some more info from that TV story was that she rented a room (at a hotel it seemed but I don't remember the TV story actually stating hotel). she rented it under the guise of being a masseuse or something legit. of course the business entity/place claimed no knowledge of what she actually did but interviews with employees (think it was employees) claimed to notice lots of different men coming and going on Thursday nights believe it was, and the victim wearing skimpy outfits that didn't really fit what they were told was going on. also appeared she modified the room quite a bit with an actual table in there and rented it regularly. it might have mentioned her going out to dinners but couldn't swear to that. she was married and had 3 kids while she was doing this so not sure she'd have went out to publicly.
my inner voice kept telling me her friends/popo/media was morons or just lying. especially since they called her an escort the whole hour of the story and everything she did sounded very escort-y. another part of that reasoning being, why would she do something like FBSM when she could have just went back to dancing much more easily? she even had experience with stripping and it was where she met her current (2nd or 3rd, forget now) husband. maybe stripping wouldn't have been as private? yet her friends claimed she told them everything so privacy wouldn't make much sense if that was a true statement.
one of the lawyers interviewed, believe read this in an article and wasn't part of the TV story (had to look this story up afterward), claimed the city attorneys were trying to make the victim seem more victim and innocent and less ho so as to have a better chance at convicting the suspect. my thinking, it doesn't matter what she did the dude still should be convicted but wonder if this angle held any credibility. maybe the thinking process is the general public might think she deserved what she got if they knew for a fact she was an actual hooker.
bottom line is it just bugged the shit out of me everytime they called her an escort then turned around and said she didn't have sex with the guys she met. it was like a mix of you fucking dumbasses can't be that dumb or she had to be the shittiest escort in her state. haha and how the hell could she claim to be filet mignon in her ad. sounded more like imitation soy bean burger.